The bump is a hot AFL issue again, with sharply-divided opinion over whether Ryan Burton should have faced sanction for concussing Shaun Higgins.
While there is some sympathy for Burton, there were also calls for greater clarity around the subject.
Match reviewer Michael Christian cleared the Hawthorn defender for the incident in Sunday’s win over North Melbourne.
Burton bumped Higgins and accidentally collected his head, knocking him out.
Higgins needed surgery on Monday for a badly-split lip.
“Contact was made from Burton’s shoulder to the chest of Higgins,” Christian said.
“I think it’s really important to understand that he took reasonable care to execute the bump fairly.
“He couldn’t reasonably foresee that there was going to be an accidental clash of heads.
“It was unfortunate for Higgins, but I just want to emphasise that when we’re assessing incidents we look at the conduct first and foremost.”
But commentator Paul Roos was unimpressed.
“This was a real opportunity to clear up this issue … he (Christian) has made a blue,” Roos said on Fox Footy’s On The Couch.
“There’s clearly an opportunity for him to tackle.”
St Kilda coach Alan Richardson and Geelong counterpart Chris Scott were unsure whether it was right to clear Burton.
“If we’re fair dinkum about trying to stamp out concussion in our game, and you have alternative, I think it’s something as an industry we have to look at,” Richardson told AFL360.
“There’s a bit in that one.”
Scott noted down-the-ground footage showed Burton running from a long way to execute the bump.
“(He) had plenty of time to sum up what he was going to do,” Scott said.
“Shaun held onto the ball a bit longer than expected, but in retrospect even Burton would be saying ‘why didn’t I just tackle him?’
“If you can tackle, you should tackle … the bump is just not worth it.”
But Melbourne veteran Jordan Lewis was sympathetic to Burton.
“Accidents happen – the intent wasn’t to harm him, hit him high or knock him out,” he said.
“I am fine with that not being reported.”
North coach Brad Scott had no problems with Burton being cleared, but also prefers that his players tackle rather than bump.
“If you bump and it goes wrong, there’s a serious chance you’re in trouble,” he said.
“From my perspective, there was no malice in that act whatsoever.
“Shaun and the Higgins family don’t feel aggrieved, we don’t feel aggrieved, so I’m not concerned or angry at the outcome.
“But I think some clarity would help.”.
Cat
Roar Guru
Pick any team and you'll find example of 'dog acts'. This isn't the past though, it is today. What was 'okay' before is not okay now. The Times They Are a-Changin'
Cat
Roar Guru
Or you could open your eyes and mind and realise that each incident is unique. There is no one size fits all.
Bogdan Kanacheeny
Guest
Can I now assume that if you bump somebody and knock them out there is every chance you can get off any charge.
Razzar
Guest
I understand Cameron Ling regarded Lindsay Thomas’s bump on Selwood as a Dog-Act. Well it was at least in the play, not like a Cat of the past, namely Garry Hocking. There were less cameras in those days, but GH made D acts a regular occourance. Best not to bring up the term Dog Acts Lingy.
andrew
Guest
i reckon if toby greene, jack ziebell or tom hawkins did the same thing the AFL might interpret the words 'reasonably foreseeable consequence' differently.
andrew
Guest
not every 'act'. every 'bump' and 'tackle'. hartlett and dangerfield were contesting a mark. surely you can disinguish between a situation when there is a loose ball in the air and multiple players contesting for it, versus a situation whereby a player has possession and the opposing player can either bump or tackle. and in choosing to bump or tackle, you have a duty of care not to injure the head, via direct contact or inferred contact .
Nick J
Guest
Hi Cat, I didn't see the footage, sorry. If one were concussed is the ball carrier protected given the nature of the game is to get the ball? If they were both concussed would neither be sanctioned? Whose head would you prioritise?
Cat
Roar Guru
So if every act that results in an accidental head clash is a suspension who then of Dangerfield and Harlett should get suspended in your opinion?
Nick J
Guest
Irrespective of the means to concuss a player if they care about head injuries a concussion should be a suspension or it should not be and then the degrees of applied force are scrutinised to reach an outcome. If there were a blanket concern for head injuries a tackle that results in concussion would result in a sanction; accidental or not. See J Waite last season in Hobart. Tackled the opposition, holding the ball, free kick to Waite (I think), player was concussed, Waite suspended by the AFL. Fair enough. This sets the precedent that heads are worth protecting and that taking a player out for a game means someone needs to balance the ledger through suspension. Fine. Everyone still tackles, everyone still bumps, just be prepared to balance the ledger. If we don't care about the head then we can fuss over the distance travelled for the bump and whether a player has the mental capacity to consider a range of possible actions available to them as they chase a piece of leather and whether someone has braced for impact etc. For instance how the hell can Zurhaar cop a fine for a bump with no harm to a player (but potential for harm) whilst Burton sends someone to hospital (harm) but received nothing. Is potential harm worth more than absolute harm? If the protection of the head was essential to the AFL then there would be no misinterpretation of any rules of the game, it would be almost binary.
Razzar
Guest
Bumping a player with an arm tucked into the shoulder should be outlawed. Once that mass of arm and shoulder combine, the extra power dynamic making connection with an opponent, thier head is suddenly shaken back, forward or sideways. The whole situation is becoming blurred and subjective, and it’s time to at least outlaw tucking of arm into body, and purely focus of attacking the ball. The elimation of the bump looks inevitable, but the speed of the game nowadays has made it very likely. What we don’t want to see, is a player ending up with a serious permanent injury.
Birdman
Guest
nice try Damien but these 2 incidents are chalk and cheese as Douglas's bump made head high contact with Merrett - it wasn't a head clash like LeCras and Burton. watch it here http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-03-24/crow-cops-onematch-ban-for-zach-whack
Damien
Roar Rookie
Consistency is the issue. Even with Christian the sole arbiter we now have confusing decisions. Douglas suspended Round 1 for an almost identical incident, this time nothing to answer for.
Birdman
Guest
no Maggie the outrage comment was aimed at the footy public and media who didn't say boo about LeCras but have piled on Burton - the question is why?
Maggie
Guest
Thanks. Having now looked and listened to that, it seems clear either Christian has decided to ignore what the Tribunal guidelines say or the 2018 guidelines have been changed without the change being communicated. Both LeCras and Burton had plenty of time to make a tackle: instead both chose to bump. Of course the head clashes were accidental - but what has been said previously is that a head clash IS a foreseeable outcome from a bump so if you choose to bump when there was an alternative, then you may be held accountable for any consequent head clash. Christian however is now saying the head clash was NOT a foreseeable outcome, it was simply an accident. If it was not foreseeable from these two examples then it is never foreseeable I suggest. I can’t see how Christian could now penalise any player for any legitimately executed bump that causes a head clash. And if that is the case then we do have consistency going forward. Need to make that explicit though.
Maggie
Guest
If the ‘outrage’ comment is aimed at me: firstly I’m not outraged* I’m saying this is now a confused area which needs to be clarified. And secondly it’s not an anti-Hawthorn comment, I hadn’t focused on whom Burton played for and wasn’t aware of the LeCras incident. But it has been hard not to know about the Higgins incident. * other than for the fact that the AFL doesn’t appear to have issued a 2018 Tribunal booklet and has never posted even its 2017 booklet on its website.
Johnno
Guest
Christian makes the decisions in consultation with the Hocking, Football Operations Manager. In the past the AFL could appeal a decision of Christian (not sure his title). With Hocking now part of that process, how can the AFL appeal a sentence they think is wrong? It would appear to me that Hocking is the judge & jury and their is no appeal process available for the AFL.
Birdman
Guest
Here's the LeCras footage from the previous week if anyone's interested https://thewest.com.au/sport/west-coast-eagles/west-coast-eagles-veteran-mark-lecras-cleared-by-match-review-panel-after-bump-ng-b88808100z
BigAl
Guest
Nah mate ! The facts show that the bump just has to go before more players get seriously injured - and the AFL faces serious legal payout (Hello. . . AFL !)
Cat
Roar Guru
Try answering those 6 questions from the guidelines and you'll have your answer.
Birdman
Guest
obviously Michael Christian was satisfied that qualifying criteria applied to the bump did not substantiate a suspension despite the resulting head clash. Watch the LeCras incident to see that he's being consistent. Could it be the outrage is indicative of anti-Hawthorn sentiment as there wasn't a murmur over LeCras?